There’s a certain amount of privilege that comes from being attractive. Starting at a young age, an attractive person is told how cute they are, and receives a degree of deference when it comes to their behavior throughout their early lives. For a certain type of attractive person, when the teenage years occur and sex becomes a possibility, people will laugh at their unfunny jokes, tolerate their deep philosophical musings about life, listen to their boring stories with interest, and generally allow some very high-maintenance, diva bullshit. When the day comes where someone finally calls them on being a selfish dope, their usual reaction is shock and horror. How can this be? Because for most of their lives everyone, including mommy and daddy and boyfriends and girlfriends, have kissed their ass and told them how pretty they are, how great they are, and gave them slack when they were egocentric. But just because they’re pretty doesn’t mean they know the secrets of the universe, will excel at being a rocket scientist, or even know how to function in an honest-to-God relationship.
Being a billionaire with political aspirations has a similar dynamic.
Wealthy people are fawned over. Their awful behavior is looked past and their money is seen as validation of both their lifestyle and viewpoints, in much the same way pretty and popular people get a pass. When I went to a Trump rally in 2016, Trump’s wealth and status as a “businessman” were a common refrain for why many in the crowd thought he’d be a great president. One woman started talking about it as a mark of Trump’s greatness because he had his own jet, while the other candidates were flying commercial or using a bus. But if bragging about bling and material goods was the basis for electing a leader, then Ric Flair should have been president of the United States. And just because someone hosted a reality TV show or has been successful at selling flavored sugar water, it doesn’t mean they know dick about border security or nuclear weapons.
While Trump is about as close as we’ve gotten to a sort-of Lex Luthor buying his way into the presidency scenario, most of the 1 percent seem to go the Koch brothers’ way, preferring to just influence government from the shadows. That way, they don’t have to take any of the responsibility when things go to shit. This is not to say the wealthy or famous can not have insightful points of view about politics, or contribute to the discussion, even through public service. But former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s foray into the presidential race got me thinking about public figures who intersect wealth and politics.
So this might be a fun question to think about: What is the most egregious case of someone attempting to personally buy a political position? And is there a “famous person” who should have run, but didn’t? With names like Oprah Winfrey, Mark Zuckerberg, and even Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson mentioned as possible future candidates, is the future of politics inevitably tied to being telegenic and independently wealthy?
Similar to the view which states there’s no such thing as an anti-war movie, there’s an that argument it’s impossible for a movie to preach the horrors of business excess while showing luxury and lots of sex. There are many people who watched Gordon Gekko’s “greed is good” speech, didn’t see it as a cautionary tale, and were inspired to become brokers. And, honestly, because movies like Wall Street and The Wolf of Wall Street follow the American Dream story of someone building a fortune from nothing, it becomes an aspirational tale. Many think they can live the first two-thirds of the rise toward the heavens, without the final act of it all crashing down when the bills start coming due. It might also be the reason why some people are willing to put their trust in someone who has the appearance and vestiges of wealth, even if he’s a creature of ego.
Here are some of the more notable examples of people who attempted to use their wealth to become major political figures.
- Donald Trump’s candidacy is a tragic culmination of an ego trip fueled by the bias, hate, and stupidity of Republican voters who hate Democrats and progressive policies more than they love their country. Trump is a creature of ego. That’s why he’s usually more concerned about his own personal image than policy, and has a conniption if someone mentions his small hands or dares to think his bank account might not be as big as he suggests. But the way things have unfolded, in both the campaign and the first two years of his presidency, is to look at this as Trump functioning on the dynamics of Reality TV. Because on Reality TV, you can lie and be obnoxious and still have fans. In fact, those fans make excuses for the people’s terrible behavior. And one can do horrible things, some of which are criminal, and people will still watch the stupidity every week. In the end, the people on these programs feel validated in their behavior because they get attention and someone is paying them to be horrible people.
For many, watching a clown defile American government by trying to declare the nature of reality by executive order is outrageous and a call to action. But for others, it’s amusing and something to be indifferent about … like a TV show.
- The title of the diary comes from a scene in the 1993 documentary The War Room, which followed the 1992 Clinton campaign, where James Carville calls Ross Perot’s presidential run “the single most expensive act of masturbation in the history of the world.” Perot spent more than $72 million in both 1992 and 1996, and failed to win a single state.
- Linda McMahon spent almost $100 million of WWE money trying to win a U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut in 2010 and 2012, before her support of Donald Trump bought her the position of chief of the Small Business Administration.
- The 1994 senate run of Michael Huffington is an interesting footnote in history on a couple of counts. Huffington, whose wealth came from banking interests and family wealth, had already parlayed it into a House seat and was attempting to defeat Sen. Dianne Feinstein. At the time it was the most expensive campaign in a non-presidential election in American history, with Huffington spending more than $20 million in a losing battle. It’s interesting to note that Huffington’s wife at the time was Arianna Huffington, who went on to found the Huffington Post. The couple attempted to ride the conservative Republican revolution to victory, and Arianna would become a fixture in media pundit circles as a voice for conservative policies. During the race against Feinstein, there were rumors the marriage was a sham, and Arianna Huffington was using Michael Huffington in order to build her profile in the political arena. Three years after the Senate race, the couple divorced. Later, Michael Huffington would publicly acknowledge being bisexual, and Arianna Huffington would do a complete political 180 and support progressive candidates and issues.
- Howard Schultz’s prospective run for office has some resemblances to Steve Forbes’ two attempts to get the Republican nomination for president in 1996 and 2000. Forbes spent almost $80 million on unsuccessfully selling himself to conservatives as the standard bearer for a flat tax that no one wanted.
- In the 1980s, Chrysler CEO and chairman Lee Iacocca was floated as a possible presidential candidate. Under Iacocca’s leadership and with help from a government bailout, Chrysler was able to save itself from going under. Whether the ability to sell a K-Car should make one ready to be president was never a question the public had to answer.
From Earl W. Foell in The Christian Science Monitor (January 24, 1984):
Question: Who have Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, Walter Mondale and John Glenn, and Ted Kennedy, Howard Baker, and Bob Dole asked for advice on the major economic issues of the day? If you answered Paul Volcker, Alan Greenspan, Ann Landers, or Robert Reich, you're wrong.
So here's Question No. 2. What celebrity advertising endorser has had the second-greatest impact on American readers and viewers - after Bill Cosby, but well ahead of Victoria Principal and Bob Hope? Answer to both: Lee Iacocca, the economic-recovery genius from Chrysler - thus proving that the fashion in both Bernard Baruchs (adviser to seven presidents) and celebrities is changing.
In place of a Baruch or a David Rockefeller, President Reagan and his main rivals have turned to the blunt-spoken, hands-on Chrysler chairman for ideas on how to put smokestack America back to work and how to compete successfully in what is increasingly a world market.
They have sought his counsel on budget deficits, military spending, industrial policy, unemployment, job retraining, and foreign trade. Reagan offered him a Cabinet post (declined). Mr. Mondale and Mr. Glenn have discussed a role for him if either makes it to the White House. Mr. Iacocca is also, ironically, the man whom a lot of Americans who wear their hearts on their bumper stickers favor for president. He thus fills an avuncular role that has become increasingly fashionable in recent decades - the nonpolitical presidential favorite.